Wow. We WERE visted by aliens

none of those pictures have anything that is definitively alien, they're all just ambiguous enough to lend themselves to that interpretation. you see aliens because 1) you've been exposed to sci-fi and the concept of aliens 2) you seemingly want to believe in alien encounters.

that's certainly not strong enough evidence to revise human history with the extraordinary claim that ET life has made an encounter with humanity.

let me rephrase that.... every piece of 'evidence' i've seen fits that description, a lot of which comes directly from this ancient aliens show and the handful of authors who inspired it.

since there are people who actively make their careers advocating this theory, i'm guessing that if they had any hard evidence they would be putting it out there.

Click to expand...

out of the hundreds of thousands of photographic and video "evidence" out there, it only takes 1 to make everything real. now mind you, of course a good majority will be fake as hell and based off nothing but wild speculation but there's without a doubt stuff that cannot be explained at all what so ever. and yeah, maybe saying it's a craft driven by extraterrestrials is saying too much, at the same time there's nothing else to really explain what it is.
for example, there's plenty of video footage of some sort of craft or whatever it may be that goes against the laws of physics. that alone narrows the possibility down of what it may truly be.

none of those pictures have anything that is definitively alien, they're all just ambiguous enough to lend themselves to that interpretation. you see aliens because 1) you've been exposed to sci-fi and the concept of aliens 2) you seemingly want to believe in alien encounters.

that's certainly not strong enough evidence to revise human history with the extraordinary claim that ET life has made an encounter with humanity.

Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Back then, they had NOT been exposed to 'Sci-Fi' etc. So to have painted UFO's, they had to have seen them. Nobody would have been able to make that shit up back then.

out of the hundreds of thousands of photographic and video "evidence" out there, it only takes 1 to make everything real. now mind you, of course a good majority will be fake as hell and based off nothing but wild speculation but there's without a doubt stuff that cannot be explained at all what so ever. and yeah, maybe saying it's a craft driven by extraterrestrials is saying too much, at the same time there's nothing else to really explain what it is.
for example, there's plenty of video footage of some sort of craft or whatever it may be that goes against the laws of physics. that alone narrows the possibility down of what it may truly be.

Click to expand...

just take a second to think about how you're actually using the concept of 'evidence', here.

you're basically saying that even if most of it is fake or wildly patched together by speculation, that only one has to be 'real' to make the theory true. so we're waiting for that one real piece of evidence to make up for all the fake or forced ones.

in doing so, you can't ignore the fact that the trend of having so many forced and faked lines of evidence pointing towards the same idea (a good majority, in your own words) clearly lends some credence to the position that this idea itself is a fabrication.

so unless we find some really definitive evidence that points toward it being true, the more reasonable position by a wide margin is that it's not true. and here is where we come to the part where there is supposed to be some game changing piece of hard evidence, which would sway the argument back in your favor. but there isn't any.*

you describe 'things which can't be explained' - that's not evidence of anything. that's a question which needs to be answered by evidence. so how are you filling in the gaps here? speculation and assumption.

You're missing the point. Back then, they had NOT been exposed to 'Sci-Fi' etc. So to have painted UFO's, they had to have seen them. Nobody would have been able to make that shit up back then.

Click to expand...

no, you're missing the point. they weren't painting ufos. you're seeing ufos in ambiguous shapes in the sky because your modern interpretation includes that concept. there are no explicit depictions of advanced technology.

just take a second to think about how you're actually using the concept of 'evidence', here.

you're basically saying that even if most of it is fake or wildly patched together by speculation, that only one has to be 'real' to make the theory true. so we're waiting for that one real piece of evidence to make up for all the fake or forced ones.

in doing so, you can't ignore the fact that the trend of having so many forced and faked lines of evidence pointing towards the same idea (a good majority, in your own words) clearly lends some credence to the position that this idea itself is a fabrication.

so unless we find some really definitive evidence that points toward it being true, the more reasonable position by a wide margin is that it's not true. and here is where we come to the part where there is supposed to be some game changing piece of hard evidence, which would sway the argument back in your favor. but there isn't any.*

you describe 'things which can't be explained' - that's not evidence of anything. that's a question which needs to be answered by evidence. so how are you filling in the gaps here? speculation and assumption.

* if you think there is such evidence, feel free to share it.

Click to expand...

i have a question, what kind of "evidence" would you need in order to believe? sounds to me like you want to sit down for a cup of coffee with an alien to be convinced we're not the only ones in the universe. when it comes to the unknown, the "evidence" of it's existence always seems to not be taken seriously.

exactly. to play it safe and humble though, i think the best response to all and any of this is the simple "i don't know if they exist or not" because none of us sat down for a cup of coffee with an alien. yet our beliefs can be swayed in a certain direction due to the presented documents and footage.

i have a question, what kind of "evidence" would you need in order to believe?

Click to expand...

that's a good question. since we have no real point of reference for what aliens or their technology look like other than in our own popular cultural and its depictions of them, it's hard to really pin down what to expect from them. so it depends on the claim.

if the claim is that alien space craft were spotted by humans thousands of years ago, its very unlikely that there is any way that could be proven one way or another. because it's just so far removed from where our evidence can reach. so with claims that are seemingly impossible to prove or disprove, there's no grounds for lending them serious consideration. i will say though that this type of claim would be more interesting if they had more explicitly detailed ancient depictions of their encounters with aliens... as it stands its all very vague and there's usually a much better interpretation when placed in their proper historical context.

if the claim is that the aliens made contact and actually set up an advanced civilization with humans here, there should be tons of archaeological evidence for these lost civilizations. i don't consider stone monuments quite sufficient for this claim. the monuments are impressive in their ancient historical context, but very underwhelming in the revisionist context of a space faring civilization having created them. of course, you could also have alien fossils or artifacts of alien technology if this theory were true, which would be pretty incredible evidence. we have none of the above.

now, in regard to modern encounters with aliens, i'd just like to see a tape that isn't blurry/ambiguous and that isn't faked. that or some piece of technology recovered from them which is undeniably alien.

sounds to me like you want to sit down for a cup of coffee with an alien to be convinced we're not the only ones in the universe.

Click to expand...

nope, and i don't think we're alone in the universe. i think we haven't made contact.

when it comes to the unknown, the "evidence" of it's existence always seems to not be taken seriously.

Click to expand...

for a good reason. the 'evidence' is always based on a speculative exploitation of mystery: "you can't explain x so therefore y is true." that's an abuse of the term 'evidence.'

Naturally, there is always skepticism when it comes to 'proof'. Sightings of UFOs and aliens are not proof. Government cover ups are not proof. Depictions are not proof.

Understood.

However, there is more of the above to convince me of the possibility of aliens than there is anything out there to prove to me God exists.

Bottom line, I believe.

Click to expand...

all of the lines of evidence you just listed for aliens also exist for god, with the exception of 'government cover ups' since it doesn't really apply there.

in fact, those lines of evidence (the type that are based on personal experience) are at the core of just about every supernatural claim. they're all equally dubious.

the other main lines of evidence for ancient aliens are usually either based on ancient texts or on an exploitation of mystery ("how could ancient people have made/known about x?"). these same lines of evidence are the backbone of most religions. same tactics, different hidden truth. once again, equally dubious.

all of the lines of evidence you just listed for aliens also exist for god, with the exception of 'government cover ups' since it doesn't really apply there.

in fact, those lines of evidence (the type that are based on personal experience) are at the core of just about every supernatural claim. they're all equally dubious.

the other main lines of evidence for ancient aliens are usually either based on ancient texts or on an exploitation of mystery ("how could ancient people have made/known about x?"). these same lines of evidence are the backbone of most religions. same tactics, different hidden truth. once again, equally dubious.

Click to expand...

There is no physical evidence for God, only Jesus. I'm not talking about the bible and stories etc., I'm talking about UFO evidence and sightings and alien bodies/sightings.

there's nothing physical to substantiate the claims of alien encounters other than blurry videos. you're right that there's no blurry videos of god. i'm not sure that i see that as a meaningful distinction.

there's nothing physical to substantiate the claims of alien encounters other than blurry videos. you're right that there's no blurry videos of god. i'm not sure that i see that as a meaningful distinction.

Click to expand...

While the purported alien bodies the government has are open for debate, THAT would be physical proof. So are the reports of the government having a ship...or at least pieces of it.

I know, I know...no proof they actually exist, but I'm convinced it's at least possible.